Contract - Implied term or estoppel? Watch
- Basically there is a contract between A and B for A to drive on B's land.
- After a while the land is difficult to drive on.
- B makes a promise to lay some tarmac on the ground so that the land is drivable again.
- Excited at the prospect of the tarmac, A builds a garage facing B's land
where the tarmac will be laid.
- Advise A on enforceability of B's promise
I am unsure whether the promise is enforceable under estoppel (as A relied upon this promise, and built a garage which cost him money = detriment). [Crabb v Arun // Combe v Combe].
Or whether there would be a term implied by fact that B would have to keep the land in good condition so that A can actually drive across it. Otherwise, if it's in bad condition, A can't drive on it, therefore the contract loses business efficacy? [Moorcock].
Could it come under either of them? Would it be worth stating in the advice that it could potentially be either, then stating the remedies for each?
While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?
We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.
If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.
Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.